Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> 0003) Removes -fwrapv. I'm *NOT* suggesting we apply this right now, but >> it seems like an important test for the new facilities. Without >> 0002, tests would fail after this, after it all tests run >> successfully. > > I suggest that if we think we don't need -fwrapv any more, we ought to > remove it. Otherwise, we won't find out if we're wrong.
Without -fwrapv signed overflow is undefined behaviour. We should test thoroughly with -ftrapv or -fsanitize=signed-integer-overflow to be confident the code is free of such things. We might even want to enable -ftrapv by default in cassert-enabled builds. - ilmari -- "I use RMS as a guide in the same way that a boat captain would use a lighthouse. It's good to know where it is, but you generally don't want to find yourself in the same spot." - Tollef Fog Heen -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
